Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, the limitations determine a value, updates a value, and updates a setting, as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: processing device, request node device, completer device, mesh/network, interface circuitry, workload throttling circuitry. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and steps of receiving do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (Ex. v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: request node device, completer device, mesh/network, interface circuitry, workload throttling circuitry, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Furthermore, the limitations directed to receiving the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (Ex. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;).
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 11, 22 the limitations of determining and lowering a value are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding claim 2-10, 13-21 the limitations of what a setting includes/based on, what a device includes, a programmable table, details of a table, what a workload is based on, what accumulation value is based on, are considered mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception Accordingly, the additional element recited in claim 3 fails to provide a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim/s 1-5, 8, 10, 12-16, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee (Pub. No. US 2024/0160552) in view of Roche (Pat. No. US 11,853,187).
Claim 1, 12 Mukherjee teaches “a method of workload throttling by a request node device that is communicatively coupled to one or more completer devices via a mesh network, the method comprising: receiving multiple completer workload indicators, one after another, by the request node device ([0033] In some embodiments, the system 130 and the end-point device(s) 140 may have a client-server relationship in which the end-point device(s) 140 are remote devices that request and receive service from a centralized server, i.e., the system 130 (i.e. mesh network). [Fig. 2] 202, 204 status messages are received), each one of the completer workload indicators indicating a level of activity of a corresponding completer device of the one or more completer devices ([0030] performance parameters—measurable outputs capable of capturing performance of a device—such as device metrics, network flow data, packet data, and/or the like to determine a resiliency status for each device at each time instant. These performance parameters may be used to determine an operational status of the device to preemptively identify instances of device malfunction. [0031] In some embodiments, the performance parameters may vary depending on the type of performance monitoring engine deployed on the device. Each performance monitoring engine may be configured to implement a specific type of performance test on the device. In one example, a performance monitoring engine used to quantify a vulnerability of a device may use performance parameters such as a status of firewall configurations, a software version determination, authentication requirements, and/or the like. In another example, a performance monitoring engine used to quantify tolerance of a device may use performance parameters such as processing times associated with processing past requests, dependencies associated with the network resources, type of requests previously processed, tolerance of the network resources, average number of requests processed at any particular time instant, and/or the like. Other examples of network performance indicators may include a memory size and usage, response time, average latency, error rate, requests per second, throughput, and/or the like. Therefore, each performance monitoring engine may be capable of making a determination as to the resiliency status of the device independently. There may be instances where a first subset of performance monitoring engines may determine that a device may be approaching operational malfunction while a second subset of performance monitoring engines may report the device being operational within the prescribed rails. In such situations, it may become tedious to determine an overall resiliency status of the device or obtain an accurate estimate of the device's overall operational status and/or potential for malfunction. Such intermittent accounts of the device's operational capacity and status makes it difficult to make a determination regarding continued operation of the device.); and for each one of the completer workload indicators received by the request node device: determining a current mapped workload value of a current completer workload indicator ([0053] Next, as shown in block 204, the method includes receiving, from a second performance monitoring engine, a second resiliency status associated with the device (i.e. current mapped workload value based upon second message). As described herein, the resiliency status (e.g., first resiliency status and second resiliency status) associated with the device may refer to an operational status of the device indicating its ability to perform allocated operational functions at a particular time instant. For example, the first resiliency status comprises a first operational status of the device and the second resiliency status comprises a second operational status of the device. Each performance monitoring engine (e.g., first performance monitoring engine and second performance monitoring engine) may capture type-based telemetry (e.g., performance parameters) associated with the operation of the device and determine a resiliency status for the device. In some embodiments, the resiliency status may include a confidence level associated with the operational status of the device. For example, the first resiliency status may include a first confidence level associated with the first operational status of the device and the second resiliency status may include a second confidence level associated with the second operational status of the device.); updating a current accumulation value based on the current mapped workload value and a previous accumulation value ([0055] Similarly, if both the first resiliency status of the first performance monitoring engine and the second resiliency status of the second performance monitoring engine indicate that the device is not likely to malfunction, then a second requirement is met, and thus a determination may be made to continue operation of the device. As described herein, the confidence level associated with the operational status of the device must meet a status threshold to be considered when making a determination regarding the continued operation of the device.)”.
However, Mukherjee may not explicitly teach adjusting throttling of status messages.
Roche teaches “updating a workload setting of the request node device for the workload throttling based on the current accumulation value ([Col. 6, Lines 53-67] (52) If the confidence level for the health status exceeds the threshold (i.e. health value provided by Mukherjee as current accumulation value), then response analysis 206 may generate a collection plan (i.e. workload setting of throttling) with reduced rates of collection, and/or reduced numbers of quantities monitored during collection. The reduction in rates and/or numbers of monitored quantities may be proportional to or otherwise based on the degree to which the threshold is exceeded. In otherwise, as the confidence in health status of data processing system 200 increases, the monitoring rates and/or numbers of monitored quantities for telemetry data generation purposes may be reduced. (53) Once action plan 208 is generated (e.g., after a health inference having a confidence level that exceeds/meets the threshold is obtained), action plan 208 may be used to drive operation management 222 of data processing system 200. During operation management 222, data processing system 200 may perform the actions specified by action plan 208.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Roche with the teachings of Mukherjee in order to provide a system that teaches details of throttling. The motivation for applying Roche teaching with Mukherjee teaching is to provide a system that allows for collection rate adjustment for the purposes of design choice. Mukherjee, Roche are analogous art directed towards monitoring systems. Together Mukherjee, Roche teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Roche with the teachings of Mukherjee by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 2, 13 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Roche teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the workload setting includes: a non-type-specific rate of outgoing requests for all types of requests, a type-specific rate of outgoing requests for a specific type of requests, enable or disable of prefetch functionality, a quality of service level ([Col. 6, Lines 21-30] (48) Health inference 204 may be used during response analysis 206 to identify actions to be performed to attempt to proactively modify the operation of data processing system 200 to reduce the likelihood of data processing system 200 becoming impaired or otherwise operating in an undesirable manner. For example, during response analysis 206 the health status (and/or telemetry data 201) may be used to identify one or more actions. The identified actions may be used to establish action plan 208. Action plan 208 may include any number of actions which may be performed by data processing system 200.), or a combination thereof”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 3, 14, the combination teaches the claim, wherein “the method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more completer devices includes a single completer device (Mukherjee [0030] As used herein, “device” may refer to any computing component (e.g., servers, switches, end-point devices, and/or the like), process, or application that may be part of the computing environment. In some embodiments, the device may be involved in data movement within the computing environment. It is not uncommon for entities to implement telemetry based performance monitoring on each device to visualize, monitor, optimize, incident identification, and report on the health and availability of the device during operation. To this end, entities aggregate performance parameters—measurable outputs capable of capturing performance of a device—such as device metrics, network flow data, packet data, and/or the like to determine a resiliency status for each device at each time instant. These performance parameters may be used to determine an operational status of the device to preemptively identify instances of device malfunction. [Col. 7, Lines 55-58] In another example, some or all of the portions of the distributed computing environment 100 may be combined into a single portion or all of the portions of the system 130 may be separated into two or more distinct portions.), and the workload setting is applicable to requests directed to the single completer device (Roche [Col. 6, Lines 53-67] (52) If the confidence level for the health status exceeds the threshold (i.e. health value provided by Mukherjee as current accumulation value), then response analysis 206 may generate a collection plan (i.e. workload setting of throttling) with reduced rates of collection, and/or reduced numbers of quantities monitored during collection. The reduction in rates and/or numbers of monitored quantities may be proportional to or otherwise based on the degree to which the threshold is exceeded. In otherwise, as the confidence in health status of data processing system 200 increases, the monitoring rates and/or numbers of monitored quantities for telemetry data generation purposes may be reduced. (53) Once action plan 208 is generated (e.g., after a health inference having a confidence level that exceeds/meets the threshold is obtained), action plan 208 may be used to drive operation management 222 of data processing system 200. During operation management 222, data processing system 200 may perform the actions specified by action plan 208.)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 4, 15, the combination teaches the claim, wherein “the method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more completer devices includes a plurality of completer devices (Mukherjee [0030] As used herein, “device” may refer to any computing component (e.g., servers, switches, end-point devices, and/or the like), process, or application that may be part of the computing environment. In some embodiments, the device may be involved in data movement within the computing environment. It is not uncommon for entities to implement telemetry based performance monitoring on each device to visualize, monitor, optimize, incident identification, and report on the health and availability of the device during operation. To this end, entities aggregate performance parameters—measurable outputs capable of capturing performance of a device—such as device metrics, network flow data, packet data, and/or the like to determine a resiliency status for each device at each time instant. These performance parameters may be used to determine an operational status of the device to preemptively identify instances of device malfunction.),, and the workload setting is applicable to requests directed to any one of the plurality of completer devices (Roche [Col. 6, Lines 53-67] (52) If the confidence level for the health status exceeds the threshold (i.e. health value provided by Mukherjee as current accumulation value), then response analysis 206 may generate a collection plan (i.e. workload setting of throttling) with reduced rates of collection, and/or reduced numbers of quantities monitored during collection. The reduction in rates and/or numbers of monitored quantities may be proportional to or otherwise based on the degree to which the threshold is exceeded. In otherwise, as the confidence in health status of data processing system 200 increases, the monitoring rates and/or numbers of monitored quantities for telemetry data generation purposes may be reduced. (53) Once action plan 208 is generated (e.g., after a health inference having a confidence level that exceeds/meets the threshold is obtained), action plan 208 may be used to drive operation management 222 of data processing system 200. During operation management 222, data processing system 200 may perform the actions specified by action plan 208.)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 5, 16 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Roche teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the updating the workload setting based on the current accumulation value is based on a first table ([Col. 3, Lines 5-11] Obtaining the revised collection plan may include identifying a suspect quantity based on the content of the first telemetry data; identifying a collection rate for the suspect quantity in a collection plan used to obtain the first telemetry data; and establishing, in the revised collection plan, a revised collection rate for the suspect quantity that exceeds the collection rate for the suspect quantity. [Col. 7, Lines 37-51] (57) For example, storage may include a memory device (e.g., a dual in line memory device) in which data is stored and from which copies of previously stored data are provided. In another example, storage may include a persistent storage device (e.g., a solid-state disk drive) in which data is stored and from which copies of previously stored data is provided.)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 8, 19 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Roche teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the current mapped workload value of the current completer workload indicator is based on a second table ([Col. 3, Lines 5-11] Obtaining the revised collection plan may include identifying a suspect quantity based on the content of the first telemetry data; identifying a collection rate for the suspect quantity in a collection plan used to obtain the first telemetry data; and establishing, in the revised collection plan, a revised collection rate for the suspect quantity that exceeds the collection rate for the suspect quantity. [Col. 7, Lines 37-51] (57) For example, storage may include a memory device (e.g., a dual in line memory device) in which data is stored and from which copies of previously stored data are provided. In another example, storage may include a persistent storage device (e.g., a solid-state disk drive) in which data is stored and from which copies of previously stored data is provided.)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 10, 21 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Mukherjee teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the accumulation value is based on a summation of the current mapped workload value and the previous accumulation value ([0053] Next, as shown in block 204, the method includes receiving, from a second performance monitoring engine, a second resiliency status associated with the device (i.e. current mapped workload value based upon second message). As described herein, the resiliency status (e.g., first resiliency status and second resiliency status) associated with the device may refer to an operational status of the device indicating its ability to perform allocated operational functions at a particular time instant. For example, the first resiliency status comprises a first operational status of the device and the second resiliency status comprises a second operational status of the device. Each performance monitoring engine (e.g., first performance monitoring engine and second performance monitoring engine) may capture type-based telemetry (e.g., performance parameters) associated with the operation of the device and determine a resiliency status for the device. In some embodiments, the resiliency status may include a confidence level associated with the operational status of the device. For example, the first resiliency status may include a first confidence level associated with the first operational status of the device and the second resiliency status may include a second confidence level associated with the second operational status of the device.)”.
Claim/s 6, 9, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee, Roche in view of Murgai (Pub. No. US 2014/0169547).
Claim 6, 17, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Murgai teaches “the method of claim 5, wherein the first table is programmable ([0032] In some aspects, server 220 may store the call information in a programmable database, such as database 227 (step 440).)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Murgai with the teachings of Mukherjee, Roche in order to provide a system that teaches details of the memory structure. The motivation for applying Murgai teaching with Mukherjee, Roche teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Mukherjee, Roche, Murgai are analogous art directed towards processing systems. Together Mukherjee, Roche, Murgai teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Murgai with the teachings of Mukherjee, Roche by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 9, 20, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Murgai teaches “the method of claim 8, wherein the second table is programmable ([0032] In some aspects, server 220 may store the call information in a programmable database, such as database 227 (step 440).)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Murgai with the teachings of Mukherjee, Roche in order to provide a system that teaches details of the memory structure. The motivation for applying Murgai teaching with Mukherjee, Roche teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Mukherjee, Roche, Murgai are analogous art directed towards processing systems. Together Mukherjee, Roche, Murgai teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Murgai with the teachings of Mukherjee, Roche by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 7, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee, Roche in view of Faust (Pub. No. US 2021/0097064) in view of Dybsetter (Pub. No. US 2005/0196165).
Claim 7, 18 the combination may not explicitly teach the limitations.
Faust teaches “the method of claim 5, wherein the first table includes 16 entries that are indexed based on the most significant four bits of the accumulation value ([0019] In example embodiments, a method of representing data (e.g., in a byte blob corresponding to an attribute identifier) is disclosed. Instead of representing data elements (e.g., values corresponding to attribute identifiers) in a byte blob in a contiguous and/or sequential manner, the bytes comprising the data elements are rotated and represented using DACs. For example, consider a byte blob that includes three data elements—a four-byte data element (e.g., “aaaa,”), a three-byte data element (e.g., “bbb”), and a one-byte data element (“c”). Instead of representing these data elements in a byte blob in a contiguous sequential order (e.g., “aaaabbbc”), the bytes of the data elements are re-ordered to list first the first byte (or character) of each data element, then the second byte of each data element, and so on (e.g., “abcababa”). In example embodiments, this re-ordered list of data elements is stored as an array of bytes, which is included in a table. The table is augmented with continuation bits. These continuation bits determine whether there are more bytes or not for each data element. Examiner notes, Dybsetter teaches as evidence a table may contain 16 entries and therefore it would be obvious there may be 16 entries as taught by Faust [0058] In main table 501, there are sixteen entries shown, each covering a memory segment of 128 bytes.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Faust with the teachings of Mukherjee, Roche, Dybsetter in order to provide a system that teaches details of organizing values. The motivation for applying Faust teaching with Mukherjee, Roche, Dybsetter teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Mukherjee, Roche, Dybsetter, Faust are analogous art directed towards processing systems. Together Mukherjee, Roche, Dybsetter, Faust teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Faust with the teachings of Mukherjee, Roche, Dybsetter by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 11, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee, Roche in view of Quach (Pub. No. US 2016/0196231).
Claim 11, 22 the combination may not explicitly teach the limitations.
Quach teaches “the method of claim 1, further comprising, for each one of the completer workload indicators received by the request node device: determining whether more than half of outstanding requests directed to the corresponding completer device are from the request node device; and lowering a priority setting of one or more subsequent write requests directed to the corresponding completer device, one or more subsequent read requests directed to the corresponding completer device, or a combination thereof, based on a determination that more than half of the outstanding requests directed to the corresponding completer device are from the request node device ([0001] The data and instruction “reads” and “writes” may be collectively termed “transactions” and are transmitted between the devices via a collection of wires known as a bus. [0038] As would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the master processing engine 201A may continue to process workload buffered in the latency buffer 112B while it waits for a response to a previously generated transaction request. Because other processing engines 201 utilizing bus 211 may have a higher priority status with the memory controller 215 at any given time than does processing engine 201A, the latency for receiving a response to a transaction request may vary. Consequently, the latency buffer 112B must be sized large enough to hold workload sufficient to avoid the risk that the processing engine 201A may stall for lack of workload while it waits for a response to its outstanding transaction request. When the workload queued in the latency buffer 112B nears or reaches the low threshold, the priority of any outstanding transaction request must be raised with the memory controller if the processing engine 201A is to avoid stalling. By contrast, when the workload queued in the latency buffer 112B nears or exceeds the high threshold, the priority of any outstanding transaction request from the master processing engine 201A may be downgraded in priority so that more urgent transaction requests from other master processing components 201 may be promptly serviced by the memory controller 215.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Quach with the teachings of Mukherjee, Roche in order to provide a system that teaches details of handling requests. The motivation for applying Quach teaching with Mukherjee, Roche teaching is to provide a system that allows for adjustment of processing for the purposes of design choice. Mukherjee, Roche, Quach are analogous art directed towards processing information. Together Mukherjee, Roche, Quach teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Quach with the teachings of Mukherjee, Roche by known methods and gained expected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights